The Supreme Court has reserved its order on whether an accused in an NDPS case can be released on bail for failure to communicate the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, even where the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act have not been satisfied.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday (October 5) reserved its order on the State of Tamil Nadu’s challenge to a Madras High Court order granting bail to an accused in a commercial quantity ganja case, on the ground that the grounds of arrest were not meaningfully communicated to him [State of Tamil Nadu v. Vignesh].
A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan heard the matter. The State was represented by B Karunakaran and the accused by Sriram Parakkat.
Background
The accused was arrested on October 19, 2025, near the Ambattur-Soorapattu Toll Plaza. The prosecution alleges recovery of 50 kg of ganja, of which 25 kg is said to have been found with him and 25 kg with a co-accused. He has been charged under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act. These are allegations, they are untested, and the accused is presumed innocent. The Court has expressed no view on the merits of the case.
The arrest memo recorded: “you have been arrested near the Ambattur-Soorapattu Toll Plaza for the offence of being in possession of ganja, a narcotic substance prohibited by the Government.”
The High Court’s reasoning
The Madras High Court found the communication of arrest grounds deficient. It noted that the memo omitted “prior information received by the police, the search conducted pursuant to that information, the seizure of the contraband and other relevant facts”. Relying on Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, it held that the grounds must be “meaningfully communicated” and that non-compliance renders detention illegal. Finding that the accused had “demonstrated prejudice through denial of a fair opportunity to defend himself”, it granted bail on a bond of Rs 25,000 with two sureties and a direction to report daily to the police.
The State’s contentions
Challenging the order, the State contends that the High Court fixated on alleged deficiencies in the communication of arrest grounds while ignoring the statutory embargo under Section 37, which applies because the contraband is of commercial quantity. It argues that the High Court recorded no finding that there were reasonable grounds for believing the accused was not guilty, and none on the likelihood of his committing an offence while on bail, and that a procedural irregularity cannot by itself entitle an accused to bail “without satisfying the twin statutory conditions”.
The accused’s contentions
For the accused, it is contended that the arrest memo failed to furnish basic facts, including the prior information with the police, the details of the search and the seizure, so that he could not effectively seek bail or present his case on merits. This, it is argued, violated his rights under Article 22(1).
NDPS Bail Question: The question before the Court
The Bench has reserved its order on whether a violation of Article 22(1) can, by itself, entitle an NDPS accused to release even where the stringent Section 37 conditions are not met. The Court has recently held, in Jaskaran Deol v. State of Punjab, that release for a violation of Article 22(1) is release from illegal detention rather than bail in the traditional sense, and that the protection applies to all offences, including those under the NDPS Act.
Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu v. Vignesh [SLP(Crl) No. 12743/2026]
Bench: Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan, Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing: October 5, 2026
For the State of Tamil Nadu: B Karunakaran
For the Accused: Sriram Parakkat